B.K.ROY, LAKSHMI BIHARI, JJ. - (1.) A number of prayers have been made in this writ petition but having gone through the pleadings of the parties and heard Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri V.R. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we find that the real question is as to whether the memorandum, as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ petition, which reads as follows should be quashed by us or not: "This has reference to the explanation dated December 28, 1993 submitted by Shri S.P. Mishra in reply to memorandum No.CO:IRD:9034/93 dated December 20, 1993 The aforesaid explanation dated December 28, 1993 submitted by Shri Mishra is not found satisfactory and convincing. I, therefore hold Sri Mishra guilty of the following charges for the reasons enumerated in Memorandum No. CO:IRD:9034/93 dated December 20, 1993 1. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence. 2. Failure to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. 3. Doing acts unbecoming of a Bank Officer. Looking to the nature and gravity of the misconduct/allegations levelled and proved against Shri S.P. Mishra as also huge outstanding in the relevant accounts, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met by imposing upon him the penalty of reduction of his pay by one stage in the time scale of pay. Accordingly, by virtue of the powers vested in me in terms of Regulation 7 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal, Regulations, 1976, I hereby pass the following order: "The penalty of reduction of his pay by one stage in the time scale of pay applicable to him be and is hereby imposed upon Shri S.P. Mishra." Sd/- Disciplinary Authority"
(2.) The main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has completely exonerated of the charges framed against him but without ecording any reasons whatsoever as to why the Disciplinary Authority is differing from his findings it has proceeded to pass the order impugned aforementioned.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, after some arguments very fairly concedes that true it is that the Disciplinary Authority had not recorded any reason as to why it is differing from the report of the Enquiry Officer but having regard to the entire facts and Circumstances explained in the counter affidavit the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of discretionary relief prayed for by him from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;